Editor's Note: A little-known $385 million contract for Halliburton subsidiary KBR to build detention facilities for "an emergency influx of immigrants" is another step down the Bush administration's road toward martial law, the writer says.

BERKELEY, Calif.--A Halliburton subsidiary has just received a $385 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security to provide "temporary detention and processing capabilities."

The contract -- announced Jan. 24 by the engineering and construction firm KBR -- calls for preparing for "an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs" in the event of other emergencies, such as "a natural disaster." The release offered no details about where Halliburton was to build these facilities, or when.

To date, some newspapers have worried that open-ended provisions in the contract could lead to cost overruns, such as have occurred with KBR in Iraq. A Homeland Security spokesperson has responded that this is a "contingency contract" and that conceivably no centers might be built. But almost no paper so far has discussed the possibility that detention centers could be used to detain American citizens if the Bush administration were to declare martial law.

For those who follow covert government operations abroad and at home, the contract evoked ominous memories of Oliver North's controversial Rex-84 "readiness exercise" in 1984. This called for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to round up and detain 400,000 imaginary "refugees," in the context of "uncontrolled population movements" over the Mexican border into the United States. North's activities raised civil liberties concerns in both Congress and the Justice Department. The concerns persist.

"Almost certainly this is preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Mid-Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters," says Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers, the U.S. military's account of its activities in Vietnam. "They've already done this on a smaller scale, with the 'special registration' detentions of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantanamo."

Plans for detention facilities or camps have a long history, going back to fears in the 1970s of a national uprising by black militants. As Alonzo Chardy reported in the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987, an executive order for continuity of government (COG) had been drafted in 1982 by FEMA head Louis Giuffrida. The order called for "suspension of the Constitution" and "declaration of martial law." The martial law portions of the plan were outlined in a memo by Giuffrida's deputy, John Brinkerhoff.

In 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 188, one of a series of directives that authorized continued planning for COG by a private parallel government.

Two books, James Mann's "Rise of the Vulcans" and James Bamford's "A Pretext for War," have revealed that in the 1980s this parallel structure, operating outside normal government channels, included the then-head of G. D. Searle and Co., Donald Rumsfeld, and then-Congressman from Wyoming Dick Cheney.

After 9/11, new martial law plans began to surface similar to those of FEMA in the 1980s. In January 2002 the Pentagon submitted a proposal for deploying troops on American streets. One month later John Brinkerhoff, the author of the 1982 FEMA memo, published an article arguing for the legality of using U.S. troops for purposes of domestic security.

Then in April 2002, Defense Dept. officials implemented a plan for domestic U.S. military operations by creating a new U.S. Northern Command (CINC-NORTHCOM) for the continental United States. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called this "the most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system was set up in 1946."

The NORTHCOM commander, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced, is responsible for "homeland defense and also serves as head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).... He will command U.S. forces that operate within the United States in support of civil authorities. The command will provide civil support not only in response to attacks, but for natural disasters."

John Brinkerhoff later commented on PBS that, "The United States itself is now for the first time since the War of 1812 a theater of war. That means that we should apply, in my view, the same kind of command structure in the United States that we apply in other theaters of war."

Then in response to Hurricane Katrina in Sept. 2005, according to the Washington Post, White House senior adviser Karl Rove told the governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, that she should explore legal options to impose martial law "or as close as we can get." The White House tried vigorously, but ultimately failed, to compel Gov. Blanco to yield control of the state National Guard.

Also in September, NORTHCOM conducted its highly classified Granite Shadow exercise in Washington. As William Arkin reported in the Washington Post, "Granite Shadow is yet another new Top Secret and compartmented operation related to the military's extra-legal powers regarding weapons of mass destruction. It allows for emergency military operations in the United States without civilian supervision or control."

It is clear that the Bush administration is thinking seriously about martial law.Many critics have alleged that FEMA's spectacular failure to respond to Katrina followed from a deliberate White House policy: of paring back FEMA, and instead strengthening the military for responses to disasters.

A multimillion program for detention facilities will greatly increase NORTHCOM's ability to respond to any domestic disorders.

Scott is author of "Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003). He is completing a book on "The Road to 9/11." Visit his Web site .-------------GUARDING THE HOMELANDPBSSeptember 27, 2002

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec02/guard_9-27.html

KWAME HOLMAN: At Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colorado, construction workers were finishing the last touches on the headquarters for the new United States Northern Command. Next week, this base will make history as the home of the first American military command with the primary responsibility of conducting homeland security missions in the continental United States. Its reach also extends to cover Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean basin.

New domestic military duties

GENERAL RALPH EBERHART: This command will be one-stop shopping in terms of providing military support to other federal agencies and to local responders.

KWAME HOLMAN: General Ralph Eberhart is the Pentagon's choice to lead the new command.

GENERAL RALPH EBERHART: We draw up plans that show how we would assist anywhere from flood to fires, to a terrorist attack; to, God forbid, a chemical, biological, nuclear-type weapons attack, weapons of mass destruction.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Northern Command will centralize the control of the kinds of homeland security missions the military performed after September 11 when fighter jets patrolled over American cities, military cargo planes flew rescue missions to New York City, and a Navy hospital ship was dispatched to New York Harbor to treat the wounded. John Brinkerhoff, a retired Army colonel who also worked at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, says the foreign-based attacks on September 11 illustrated an urgent need for a domestic military command.

JOHN BRINKERHOFF: The United States itself is now for the first time since the War of 1812 a theater of war. That means that we should apply, in my view, the same kind of command structure in the United States that we apply in other theaters of war.

OFFICIAL: Ladies and gentlemen, please be calm, take your clothes off, clean yourselves down. We're here to help you.KWAME HOLMAN: To perform its missions, the Northern Command would be able to call on units from each of four armed services.

KWAME HOLMAN: This 400-member unit, based an hour's drive south of Washington D.C., was created in 1996 specifically to respond to weapons of mass destruction attacks on civilians. Commanding Officer Colonel Thomas Hammes:

COLONEL THOMAS HAMMES: Essentially, we're to back up civilian first responders in a life-saving role. Our job is to enter a contaminated environment, extract the casualties, decontaminate them, and hand them over to the civilian medical service for final treatment.

Benefits to the country

CHIEF JOHN DARBY: We basically have the same skill sets that most fire departments around the city do have.KWAME HOLMAN: Marine Reservist John Darby is a local senior firefighter when he's not on active duty.

CHIEF JOHN DARBY: It's the quantities of people that we bring, you know, to the incident, and I think that's the biggest thing that we have is the numbers of people.

OFFICIAL: The two teams and yourself have leadership…

KWAME HOLMAN: But relying on the military for such traditionally civilian duties has its critics.

AMY SMITHSON: In order to make a life- saving difference in a chemical attack, you've got to be there with your gear, working with victims within a matter of minutes, not hours.

KWAME HOLMAN: Amy Smithson is a public policy analyst at the Henry Stimson Center, a non- profit research organization. She says communities depend on the quick response of local fire departments and HAZMAT teams in the event of a catastrophic attack, and money spent on assets like the Marine unit would be better directed toward beefing up local first responders.

AMY SMITHSON: It's the locals that have to be best trained and equipped; they are the people that are going to save lives. That was proved on September 11, and proved many times over in any number of other disasters.

BATTALION CHIEF MICHAEL FARRI: We don't look at ourselves as a law enforcement agency.

KWAME HOLMAN: Michael Farri is a battalion chief in Alexandria, Virginia's fire department, which exercised with the Marine unit. He likes the fact that the chemical and biological response force could provide policing as well as rescue functions.

BATTALION CHIEF MICHAEL FARRI: They bring a law enforcement agency group with them and they have no problem if somebody needs to be restrained with handcuffs or flex cuffs or whatever to keep them from going from the hot zone to a cool zone; whereas the fire department, we are not geared to do that.

KWAME HOLMAN: So that's a benefit?

BATTALION CHIEF MICHAEL FARRI: Absolutely. I think it is a benefit. You have better containment, and better control.

COLONEL THOMAS HAMMES: Obviously, first, we try to just talk to them. If they're really hysterical, there's some simple techniques from this program called Marine Martial Arts, that teaches various martial arts skills; there are common techniques that police also use to provide pain compliance-- no permanent damage, just enough to get your attention, and allows us to control you. If you still won't, then we can control in flex cuffs, and then we'll flex cuff decontaminate you. And if you're calm at that point, we turn you loose. If you're still not calm, then the police will be asked to give us a hand.

TIMOTHY EDGAR: I think that just shows one of the potential dangers for mission creep.

KWAME HOLMAN: Timothy Edgar is legislative counsel in the Washington, DC, office of the American Civil Liberties Union. He says the prospect of the military engaging in law enforcement is problematic. He points to the case of a military unit that helped patrol the U.S.-Mexican border in Texas, resulting in the death of American citizen Ezequiel Hernandez.

TIMOTHY EDGAR: Unfortunately, there was an incident in 1997 where a young Marine shot and killed a student who was herding his family's goats out on the border. That's not the kind of position we want to put our troops in. We want to make sure our troops are fighting wars -- that they're not put in the position of having to make those kinds of judgments that are better left to police departments that have the kind of training to respect constitutional rights and to use minimal force, rather than overwhelming force to defeat the enemy.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Defense Department says any deployment of the Northern Command will be guided by the principles of the Posse Comitatus Act. Congress created that legislation during the Civil War era. It prohibited the army from enforcing civilian laws unless specifically authorized. Posse Comitatus was a reaction to how federal troops had been used.

Local southern sheriffs used them to track down fugitive slaves before the Civil War. Later, soldiers protected freed slaves from vigilantes, kept the peace after disputed elections, and even guarded polling stations during the presidential election of 1876. General Eberhart spoke to NewsHour reporter Dan Sagalyn.

GENERAL RALPH EBERHART: As a law, it's something we have to be, one, familiar with and, two, abide with, and that's certainly what we'll do. So it's essentially, it establishes lanes in the road, of tasking; missions, if you will.

Limits of duty

KWAME HOLMAN: But Timothy Edgar says the Act has loopholes and is not sufficient to protect civil liberties.

TIMOTHY EDGAR: The Posse Comitatus Act and other laws have a number of exceptions in them, and those exceptions can permit the military to be involved in law enforcement with creative legal interpretation, and that's not the kind of thing we want. We need guidelines that are based on functions and that will prevent the military from being involved in those routine activities.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Northern Command's leader says he'll have more than 200 people focusing on domestic intelligence. They would receive information about potential threats from local, state and national agencies.

GENERAL RALPH EBERHART: I'd like to get information in terms of that they've seen something suspicious, so if we're starting to see a lot of suspicious things or there's a pattern across the country, or if it's all at dams, per se, or all at hydroelectric plants, that, to me, starts to paint a picture of where we might be vulnerable or what the enemy is considering doing.

TIMOTHY EDGAR: Well, it raises a lot of questions. There was a program during the '50s and '60s where the Pentagon was involved in receiving intelligence information about protesters. It was called Continental United States based on some of our exaggerated fears of leftist movements in the U.S. That's not the kind of thing we would want our military to be involved in. They obviously need to have access to the information which is important for them to do their job. But we don't want the military, certainly, to be spying on Americans for their political activities.

GENERAL RALPH EBERHART: We are not going to be out there spying on people. We get information from people who do.

COL. RANDALL LARSEN (Ret.): There is going to be a problem. They're going to have to pull back on the reins a little bit. You know, in the military, they teach you to lean forward, to be prepared, to go out and do the plans.KWAME HOLMAN: Larsen directs the Institute for Homeland Security at the consulting group Anser Corporation. He supports creating the new command, but says it must show restraint.

COL. RANDALL LARSEN (Ret.): And so it's going to be difficult for a four-star general, what we used to call CYNCS, we now call Combatant Commanders, for them not to be charging forward to go out and do the mission they see in front of them a major attack occurs on a U.S. city like a tactical nuclear weapon goes off in some city, that general is going to be starting to move airplanes and assets and resources.We realize that, first of all, the mayor is going to have to call the governor; the governor is going to have to call the president; he'll act, the president will activate the federal response plan, and part of that will be the military in a supportive role. So it is a little bit different for the general to have to sit back and all of their staff and all of their careers they've trained to step forward.

KWAME HOLMAN: Retired National Guard Brigadier General David McGinnis says the National Guard should be the first military responders inside the homeland. Otherwise, he says, it may be too tempting simply to give active duty forces carte blanche during a major disaster.

BRIG. GENERAL DAVID McGINNIS (Ret.): My concern is that a situation will happen; there will be a large catastrophe somewhere, and the commander will come in and say, "I'm taking control." The sheriffs, the mayors will say, "no, you're not." And he's going to say, "I'm declaring this a national defense area under the existing statute, and I'm taking control of this area," and move his troops in and push everybody out, take control of the area.

GENERAL RALPH EBERHART: There may be situations if we ever got into a major chemical biological nuclear attack problem where we may, in fact, be in charge. And the only way I can see that happening is one of two ways: First, it's become so bad that the lead federal agency in working with the state governors say, you know, "we give up. We do not have the wherewithal to deal with this. We need not only federal support and federal help here, but we need the federal forces to take the lead." And then the president and the Secretary of Defense would have to decide, "yes, that is appropriate."

KWAME HOLMAN: As of next week, the Northern Command, with an eventual staff of 500 and a $70 million budget, officially begins a new era in the military's role in homeland security.